Allowed

Kanchan Kumari and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2012CRM-M/32374/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a non-compoundable FIR under section 482 CrPC relying on a compromise. Citing Dharambir and Kulwinder Singh, the court held that Section 320 CrPC does not bar quashing proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the compromise is voluntary and serves justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 92 dated 31.7.2011 registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur for offences u/s 341, 324, 326 read with s. 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Kanchan Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-32374 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-32374 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 17^th , 2012

¶5

Kanchan Kumari and others .... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present Mr. J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shivali, A.A.G. Punjab, for the State.

¶13

Mr. Amit Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Kanchan Kumari, Rajni Kumari and Mukesh Sehdev, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing of FIR No.92 dated 31.7.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur for an offence punishable under sections 341, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise (Annexures P2).

¶16

While issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate on 31.10.2012 for getting their

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-32374 of 2012

¶18

¶19

statements recorded in support of the compromise. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur has sent her report in this regard through learned District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. She has reported that she had recorded the statements of the parties, who have supported the factum of compromise. She has concluded her report by submitting that the parties have already settled their grievances amicably and that the compromise arrived at between them through the intervention of the respectable persons and relatives, is without any pressure or coercion from anyone.

¶20

The contested decisions made by the courts may leave scars on the litigants losing the battle. In a decision based on compromise, none is a loser and, therefore, it does not leave any such scar. Compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute but also restores tranquility in the society. Taking restoration of peace and harmonious relations between the parties and order in the society as the prime concerns of law, it has been held by this court in Dharambir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 426 that a non compoundable matrimonial offence could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. However, the said decision left a gap as it did not cover the cases other than the cases for matrimonial offences. A Larger Bench of five Hon`ble Judges of this court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 took the following decision with regard to the other non-compoundable offences:-

¶21

“29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-32374 of 2012

¶23

¶24

is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a latest decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 9 . It was a case for an offence punishable under section 394 IPC and was not less serious than the case in hand. In that case, FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶26

The FIRs/complaints in non-compoundable offences, therefore, could be quashed on the basis of compromise. It is for the reason that after compromise, no evidence supporting the prosecution is possible to come on the record and possibility of conviction of the accused becomes bleak. However, before accepting the petition and quashing the proceedings, the court has to satisfy itself that the compromise is just and fair in which no party is taking undue benefit. The compromise in hand not only satisfies the above said requirements, but also appears to be securing the ends of justice. I, therefore, find that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties without their being any pressure on anyone. Hence, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 92 dated 31.7.2011 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur for

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-32374 of 2012

¶28

¶29

an offence punishable under sections 341, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.

¶30

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶31

December 17^th , 2012 som

Kanchan Kumari and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Kumari and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Vs Vikas Enterprises.

Dalwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parmjit Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Satnam Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Raj Pal Singh S/O Bhura Ram and Ors.